Sunday, June 22, 2014

The inconsistency of statism

Almost everyone, libertarian or not, agrees it is wrong to initiate force.

In case you don't understand the term "initiate force" it means to be the first one to throw a punch. To be the attacker. The aggressor. To be the one who "starts it" by the physical act of "laying on of hands"- or making a credible threat to do so. If someone is calling you names, and you punch him, you are the bad guy. Sorry.

Where some people disagree with libertarians is that they realize it is wrong to initiate force, but they believe they can carve out an exception for people calling themselves "government". Whether that individual is a cop, or in the military, or whatever.

The only way that could be OK is if you have the right to initiate force, and you loan that authority to someone else. But you don't have that right. You can't give away what isn't yours to give. No one, calling themselves "government" or anything else, can have any rights or authority that everyone else doesn't possess.

You have the right to defend yourself. You have the right to defend your property. So does every other person on the planet, regardless of circumstances, "job", location, past, anything.

You do not have the right to point your finger at anyone else and say they can't carry a gun, smoke a leaf, grow some plants, keep a wolf in their living room, drive their own car without getting a license from you, live anywhere they can buy or rent a house, build a house on their own property, travel across property that doesn't belong to you, etc. Since you don't have those rights or that authority, you can't pretend to give someone else those powers on your behalf. And you most certainly can't pretend you give them those powers on MY behalf. I DO NOT consent!!

This is the problem with statism: the blatant inconsistency inherent to it. Consistency doesn't necessarily mean you are right- you can be consistently wrong- but inconsistency is a sure sign you are wrong.


1 comment:

  1. I'm convinced, Kent, that there is something spiritual in the nature of men (including, of course, women -- the language is sexist: "mankind" = "womankind") that gives rise to the belief that monopoly government can solve disputes and human unrest. However, once one trots out the word "spiritual" s/he immediately arouses the suspicion of free women and men. They'll presume that s/he is bringing in the nonsense of religion in one form or another.

    Then, if one (as I did above in my embedded link) uses a phrase or two from the Hebrew Book s/he will be tuned out like an unplugged radio. Even though the Book exceeds all others in sales year after year, free individuals do not wish to listen to The Message -- which is understandable. It has been co-opted very successfully by the puritans of religion, in covenant with those psychopaths that make up the heart and the core of "government".

    I am a sovereign state. I choose to defend my borders against all gainsayers. But, since I'm old and weak, it is to my advantage to make my borders unattractive to would-be oppressors. Because they are going to exist -- it's pointless to argue that they "shouldn't" exist -- and they are going to ignore any claim I make about "rights".